Future compare viagra prices research may provide healthcare professionals with a greater understanding of buy celebrex online australia dementia and new, potential therapies for neurodegenerative disorders. It is allopurinol online sales best for people to contact a doctor if they think buy generic viagra problems they may have begun experiencing new asthma symptoms or if cheapest generic cialis existing symptoms worsen. Although researchers think that growth factors play lumigan sale a role in healing, it is unclear precisely how platelet-rich order no rx lumigan plasma aids healing. However, evidence from randomized controlled trials suggests nexium no prescription that vitamin D supplements do not lower the risk of purchase estradiol no rx cancer development overall or of developing specific cancers. Adopting healthier diovan malaysia eating patterns, weight management, and avoiding triggers, such as spicy free kenalog online order foods, caffeine, and alcohol, may benefit both conditions. People with order remeron lowest dosage cheapest price mixed dementia need medical care to get the right diagnosis cheapest flovent side effects dose and to explore treatment options. Insurance companies have different formularies, buy cephalexin online and each can decide which medications it covers, the tiers a.

In an editorial published on December 13, the Globe takes the risky position of decrying the penalties of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act as “draconian” and the law itself as lacking “common sense” in the area of music downloading. Risky because, of course, the Globe and the New York Times depend on the law to protect their own content. Of course they do not, as the music industry does, take teenagers to court for making copies of their copyrighted content. But that hasn’t stopped the stream of vicious comments about the Globe’s hypocrisy.

The editorial is in response to the trial of Joel Tenenbaum and Judge Nancy Gertner’s plaint to Congress to do something about the “travesty” of justice (the Globe’s word). The paper wonders aloud whether Professor Charles Nesson, who represented Tanenbaum, helped his cause by the defense he took — claiming that music file sharing was allowed under “fair use.” That’s a stretch that even the most libertarian thinkers haven’t endorsed.

What’s interesting to me about the editorial is the reactions. Of course one never knows who the commenters are; they could all be music industry lackeys, for all we know. Still, we have here a defense of big business against a powerless individual — some people even compared him to Madoff, since in each case their crimes were committed with a few keystrokes. There is some amplification of power that people see in the control of digital information that makes them lose all sense of perspective and proportion. I don’t think the same people would think $675,000 was a reasonable fine if Tenenbaum had stolen a CD from a store.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, December 15th, 2009 at 10:57 am and is filed under Owning bits—copyright. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.